The terms, they are a-changing ...
Friday, December 18th 2009 @ 4:59 PM (not yet rated)
We all would like to think that the terms (or terminology) we use for every-day tasks will always stay the same. When they don't, we're bound to have problems understanding something we may have worked hard to learn. When the terms used to mean "X" now mean "Y" instead, it can take a while to figure out what someone actually means. Such a change has recently happened in photographic terminology. For just one example, "Editing" ain't what it used to be!
"Editing" for the last hundred years or so in photographic parlance meant the process of culling down images for a specific purpose, whether to find the "best" in general or for a specific use. Say, "editing" a trip to Africa to find the best images to send to a stock agency. I've read the term in this use so MANY times, I've "edited" through shoots SO MANY times, this is WHAT THIS WORD MEANS!
(Long, heavy sigh ... )
Not any more. "Editing" is now ... something else. I've seen "culling" used for what was "editing", but I've also seen "searching" and "finding" used for it, though they don't always seem to fit to me. I'm not sure exactly WHAT term we're supposed to use, though I think in general "culling" fits better than "searching" or "finding".
And it seems, the new meaning of "editing" in photographic use means using the "digital darkroom" to change the look of an image, whether changing lightness, darkness, contrast, color, or other visual elements of the image or images involved. Within professional parlance, this is still more often called "post-processing", or "PP" for short. I think it is MUCH more appropriate, as do many of my professional peers.
What makes this all even more confusing and frustrating for me, is that many of the people who use "editing" to mean what I've referred to as "PP", ALSO use the word "editing" to mean culling a shoot or collection of images. THAT is confusing! In several essays, I've seen "editing" a shoot used to refer to culling, which one does to get the individual or groups of image on which one will do "editing" that clearly means post-processing.
Huh?
We purists are kind of outnumbered though ... like maybe, 100 to 1? ... by the amatuers and the odd professional that uses "non-standard" terminology. The use of "editing" to mean post-processing is EVERYWHERE. Ubiquitous.
Ah well, I fought the good fight ... I need to accept this new mental concept of the term. That the new mental concept of editing in the photographic sense means something like, say, that HEAVY-handed Editor (a person in the job of Editor at say, a newspaper; just of course to choose a totally random association with which I have absolutely no personal or emotional connection). The kind of Editor that completely re-writes any essay or article he's editing.
It's a hard swallow for me. I've NEVER liked those kind of Editors. I actually quit on one back while I was in college. Just told him off and walked out, the only time I've ever actually done that. Thirty-some years later I've STILL got people who remember ME from his words! And they ain't happy folk, I'm here to tell you! This is NOT to indicate any latent or internalized DISLIIKE of ... Editors. Or indicate any personal distaste for a mere word, a simple concatenation of letters. (Blech)
But time and life move on, waiting for no one, PARTICULARLY for me. And as an ol' English Lit major, I recognize RULES in the proper use of verbiage. Usage changes over time, and when the preponderance of the "users" of a set of terms change their usage, the usage is CHANGED. Shorter is better, one word is better than two if you don't lose understanding, and acronyms are (in general use) irritative. So ... "editing" ... by those terms of definition, is ... the right word for "general" use.
I can still use "post-processing" and the acronym "PP" ... but I need to start getting used to using "editing" in it's new "digs".
Sigh. What do I have to put up with next? 
